Can pregen deaths still be reassigned?


Pathfinder Society

451 to 500 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


Those conversations are best left outside guide revision suggestions.

First, I'd like to join the people above explicitly thanking you for what you're trying to achieve, especially when you don't yourself agree with all of this change. I understand the goal of making sure that the language is clear.

But it sort of feels like you're trying to hijack this thread. This thread seems to me to primarily be a place where people who don't like the new rules are explaining why and arguing with the few who do like it. We're arguing whether this change should be made at all. That presumably has value to Tonya, John et. al. We may be raising points that they hadn't considered OR we may be indicating considerably more antipathy to the change than they were expecting, either of which may cause them to reevaluate their position.

There is what seems to me a secondary set of conversations going on (primarily but not only between Nefreet and you) aimed at clarifying HOW this change should be worded to achieve its desired effect. Obviously, assuming the change continues to happen, a good idea

May I please respectfully suggest that you start a new thread with the purpose of discussing the wording and the implementation of this change while we keep this thread for discussing whether it is a good idea or not.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast aka heretic

Andrew Christian wrote:
William Boyle wrote:

There are number of concerns expressed. From the feedback I have had I think there are two matters causing more debate than others - on this issue anyway!

1. If the conditions on the chronicle awarded for the pregen have to be resolved when it is assigned: are any of the resources on that sheet available to cover the cost that the persistent character must bear or must all of it come from the resources of the persistent character's already applied chronicles?

All resources on the chronicle sheet earned by the pregen may be used to resolve the conditions incurred during that scenario. Additionally, resources from the character must be spent. Whether what is earned on the chronicle sheet is enough for that mandatory expenditure or not is irrelevant. You can use it, or use cash directly from your character.

William Boyle wrote:
2. If resources from the already applied chronicles are the source from which the condition removal must be born does that mean the chron stack of the persistent character must be there before a player may use a pregen this way?

Yes. Otherwise just use the cash earned on the future chronicle sheet to cover the mandatory expenditure. If there is not enough cash for some reason, and the character's paperwork is not present, then there is a problem with spending that character's existing cash.

As a GM, particularly for a local that you know and play with / GM for often, you can defer that paperwork until the next time you see them. Making sure they understand they can't play the character until this has been resolved.

Remember, the scenario doesn't "end" until the GM says it does. Please don't take this to the extreme, if this is done reasonably and with common sense, and with good intent, then it all works out fine.

One thing springs to mind: if we are saying that you can just use the cash on the pregen's chron to cover the mandatory expense (which I take is the 1 or 2 thousand gold) how do we link in the bit that says that additional to the resources on the sheet, resources from the character must be spent

If the level 7 pregens gear can be released by dropping 2K from the 7-11 chronicle it is highly likely that there will be enough to cover the condition removals and maybe a bit left over. With a level 4 the rewards will not cover the 1k and the gear will not cover the raise dead.

Thanks for the swift reply!

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amiros Valeri wrote:


I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. (...)

AP's using Campaign mode is not the same as getting pregen credit, so you don' have to worry about this happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:


I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. (...)
AP's using Campaign mode is not the same as getting pregen credit, so you don' have to worry about this happening.

Yes, it is. We are using the home-brewed rules, applying pre-gen credit towards actual PFS campaign characters.

Page 11 of the new guide, starting in the last paragraph of the first column "Credit is applied to an appropriate Roleplaying Guild character as if the character created was a pregenerated character."

> Andrew: if needed, please ensure that modification to the current wording of the new guide specifically lets us know if the new 'choose before you play' rule only applies to when you are playing iconic pre-gens in a PFS scenario, and not for modules and adventure paths.

As only gold point surcharges were listed for level 1, 4 and 7 pre-gens it would seem the intent was only for iconic pre-gens played in scenarios.

The Chelaxian's advocate viewpoint would be since there is no specific exceptions listed that it applies to ALL pre-gens (whether iconic or home-brewed PCs using campaign mode). With no surcharge unless the pre-gen being played is exactly level 4 or level 7. This is an example of why the current wording in the new guide is unclear.

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amiros Valeri wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:


I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. (...)
AP's using Campaign mode is not the same as getting pregen credit, so you don' have to worry about this happening.

Yes, it is. We are using the home-brewed rules, applying pre-gen credit towards actual PFS campaign characters.

Page 11 of the new guide, starting in the last paragraph of the first column "Credit is applied to an appropriate Roleplaying Guild character as if the character created was a pregenerated character."

> Andrew: if needed, please ensure that modification to the current wording of the new guide specifically lets us know if the new 'choose before you play' rule only applies to when you are playing iconic pre-gens in a PFS scenario, and not for modules and adventure paths.

As only gold point surcharges were listed for level 1, 4 and 7 pre-gens it would seem the intent was only for iconic pre-gens played in scenarios.

The Chelaxian's advocate viewpoint would be since there is no specific exceptions listed that it applies to ALL pre-gens (whether iconic or home-brewed PCs using campaign mode). With no surcharge unless the pre-gen being played is exactly level 4 or level 7. That there is an example of why the current wording in the new guide is unclear.

But in a home-campaign you don't report deaths. You roll up a new character and keep playing. If you complete the book, you get a chronicle sheet.


claudekennilol wrote:


But in a home-campaign you don't report deaths. You roll up a new character and keep playing. If you complete the book, you get a chronicle sheet.

I do not recall reading that in the season 7 guide. Was that something that was mentioned in the blogs that never made it to the guides?

Is that the official rule regarding characters in campaign mode for APs (and campaign mode modules)? That it does not matter if one of the characters die? It is based solely on the player (not a specific character) completing a book in the AP set?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Correct. The GM has the authority to ressurect dead PCs in any manner, and the PFS character does not need to pay for removal of conditions from the campaign mode PC. What happens in Campaign Mode stays in Campaign Mode.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast aka heretic

A while back Mike Brock said you could run the AP in campaign mode using 13th Age if you wanted. So you have a pretty free hand! I understand you could interpret the assigning of Chrons in the same way as you do pregen credit meaning that the new rules apply. I don't think that they do as you are not actually playing with pregens.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Correct. The GM has the authority to ressurect dead PCs in any manner, and the PFS character does not need to pay for removal of conditions from the campaign mode PC. What happens in Campaign Mode stays in Campaign Mode.

Thank you. One of my worries has been if one of the PCs die then it would put a considerable dent in our 2+ year's worth plan of our future PFS character campaign. That completely removes that potential significant hiccup to our plans.

Thank you, Lamplighter, Claude and Steven. That gets an athach's three thumbs up.


William Boyle wrote:
A while back Mike Brock said you could run the AP in campaign mode using 13th Age if you wanted. So you have a pretty free hand! I understand you could interpret the assigning of Chrons in the same way as you do pregen credit meaning that the new rules apply. I don't think that they do as you are not actually playing with pregens.

The current rules as written state you treat campaign mode PCs as if they were pre-generated characters as I pointed out above (page 11 of the new guide).

Lamplighter, Claude and Steven let me know these important aspects of campaign mode that is not included in the guide.

As Mike stated that before the new guide was released, was there a specific reason such an important bit of information was not included in the guide?

Would I be correct in thinking that each year's Guide should include any changes the leadership has made and posted on the blogs during the twelve months since the previous guide was released? Or are GMs/players expected to read through the entirety of the blogs since season 0 to ensure they know all relevant rules that are not included in the most current guide? Not trying to be rude/mean. Apologies if it is coming off that way.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.

Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.

Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.

Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)

I hear you, but you are only addressing the risk of abuse.

They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.

Then give us pregens that actually follow the rules of the game. Its ridiculous that your expected to pony up for resurrection when at their worst they are missing 3/5 of their class abilities.
Can you elaborate on that? I'm aware of some errors on the pregens, but those I'm aware of are fairly minor. Which ones are missing 3 of 5 class abilities?
The Medium which I get for space reasons not writing out the abilities but once again the character is drastically less powerful compared to a normal Medium I can build.

Drastically less powerful doesn't mean they can't use 3 out of 5 class abilities.

Some argue that most pregens are drastically less powerful. And for those who enjoy optimizing thier characters, that is likely true. But most pregens are quite capable.

Just don't use the ones you feel are so underpowered that the risk of death might be...

This isn't an optimization issue. This is a "Gee my character sure was useless that scenario I can fix that. Huh... Why do the pregens not have such a simple piece of equipment?".

5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Thomas Hutchins that the best way to levy the cost of pregen death is to wait until the character actually reaches the level where the chronicle is applied and then pay the full cost, minus any contributions from other characters. With that in mind, I would suggest the following changes to the second bullet point under Resolving Conditions on page 6:

"The player can use the pregenerated character’s funds—including selling her gear at half price—to pay for these spellcasting services. In addition, the player can contribute the associated Roleplaying Guild character’s resources (gp and Prestige Points) to this end. Make a note of the condition that occurred on the chronicle as well as any gp or Prestige Points contributed by anyone other than the pregenerated character to resolve the condition. When the PC receives credit for the scenario, she must pay any costs that she committed at the time the condition was resolved plus any remaining costs not covered by other player character contributions."

The current option allows the character to contribute based on what they have available and I left that in, although I think it may be easier to only allow contributions from other characters and have the character to whom credit is assigned pay the balance when the chronicle is assigned. If campaign leadership wishes any contributions from the player's character to be levied immediately and have them deducted from current chronicles rather than have them resolved when it is assigned, that creates a more complex situation that will require significantly more text to describe, in my opinion.

The advantage to this change is that the character essentially suffers the same consequences as if she had played in the scenario and they are resolved at the appropriate level, where she should have the resources necessary to pay them, rather than requiring a cost that a low-level PC almost certainly cannot afford (likely resulting in permanent death).

EDIT: Corrected a typo and clarified an occurrence where I used "character" where I intended it to say "player character" (meaning to exclude the pregen).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Would that method disincentivize other party members to contribute towards the pregen's raising? And would party members be able (or willing) to contribute when the Chronicle finally catches up? The costs will be squarely on the PC at that point.

I don't know if this would even be a major concern or problem, but I figured it was worth mentioning.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Andrew, how is the player supposed to spend gold, when the PC and all attendant paperwork is not at the table?

Two weeks ago, when a player ran a pre-gen at a table, she walked away with a Chronicle sheet that wasn't all-the-way filled out. (It gets assigned to xxxxxx-05, a monk PC, but at the point the player walks away from the table, she doesn't know the monk's running total of gold, so she can't calculate the new current gold amount...)

Now, we need to know whether the PC has enough money to survive. If today's Chronicle sheet is going to be held for the PC, until he reaches an appropriate character level, then we can't use gold off that Chronicle sheet. So the PC has to have 1000 / 2000 gold, immediately available.

So, without the PC and the most recent Chronicle sheet, how is the player supposed to know how much gold the PC has on-hand?

As a Judge, I believe in the honor system. I will ask the player to do their best to remember the character's assets and work with what they give me from there. Then assuming things work out, I will trust that when they get back home, they'll dig out their documents and reconcile any discrepancies. I really can't afford to worry about whether a player will cheat on this step. It's on them... not me.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Would that method disincentivize other party members to contribute towards the pregen's raising? And would party members be able (or willing) to contribute when the Chronicle finally catches up? The costs will be squarely on the PC at that point.

I don't know if this would even be a major concern or problem, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

So like Pete said, you play through as lv7 kyra. You die. On the sheet the GM would write, Died, received X gold/PP from party for rez. Then when the lv6 reaches lv7 and gets the chronicle the GM would write on the old chronicle that they paid the rest of the rez or write that the character died if they couldn't pay for the rez on the new chronicle. The current players at that table don't factor in, only the players at the table where the pregen died can contribute anything.

And as I mentioned earlier, with this change I feel the leadership could easily remove the line saying you can sell pregen gear to rez yourself. This would make a pregen death just as expensive as a real death. The only advantage is that you can prepare for it as you get there rather than having it be a surprise.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I foresee a lot of people saying "I'm not contributing anything, 'cause you can just save for it yourself."

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Well, I mean it depends on how much of those sweet sweet pregen consumables you used on me. If you emptied out Kyra 7s wand of CMW keeping me standing, I might be able to throw you 100gp or so. It's only fair.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

As a Judge, I believe in the honor system. I will ask the player to do their best to remember the character's assets and work with what they give me from there. Then assuming things work out, I will trust that when they get back home, they'll dig out their documents and reconcile any discrepancies. I really can't afford to worry about whether a player will cheat on this step. It's on them... not me.

It's not a question of cheating, Drahliana. Here's an example:

I haven't played my cleric is over two-and-a-half years, because there's a module I want to play him through, and there hasn't been the opportunity to play that adventure.

Now, I walk into a local game store and find out that the PFS organizer is going to be running that adventure this afternoon. I can't get back home to get my PC, but they have a slot at the table.

The pre-gen dies.

How much gold is on my PC's sheet?

--

Here's a question: I have a boon that makes returning from the dead much cheaper, but it's only good on a low-level character. Right now, the character to which it's assigned is 3rd-level, and the boon would apply. If that PC dies, it's pretty cheap to bring her back.

So, I'm playing a 7th-level pre-gen and planning to assign the Chronicle to that 3rd-level PC. The pre-gen dies, as pre-gens are wont to do in this discussion.

Can I use the boon?

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Kalindlara wrote:

I foresee a lot of people saying "I'm not contributing anything, 'cause you can just save for it yourself."

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

A player's actual character dies at the table. I foresee a lot of people saying "Tough, I'm not contributing anything, it's not my character."

Like, going the waiting route proposed doesn't really change the dynamic of having a player at the table die. If people were going to chip in they'd chip in. If people weren't going to chip in they aren't now. And I feel there'd be very few people who'd say, "If you were playing your real character I'd chip in, but since it was a pregen I'm not, even though the consequences to your real character are the same as if they'd have died."

Silver Crusade 5/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

And as I mentioned earlier, with this change I feel the leadership could easily remove the line saying you can sell pregen gear to rez yourself. This would make a pregen death just as expensive as a real death. The only advantage is that you can prepare for it as you get there rather than having it be a surprise.

Nah, that isn't punitive enough. I think that if a pregen dies your character should be killed and then raised as undead AND taken to another plane. So you have to pay for a resurrection AND a body recovery.

That should teach you that this game is only fun if its really, really dangerous.

[Obvious]Given the nature of the net, I'll explicitly point out that the above is sarcastic. There are lots and lots of people who find the new rules far, far too punitive. Making them worse would be, uh, worse[/Obvious]


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I foresee a lot of people saying "I'm not contributing anything, 'cause you can just save for it yourself."

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Oddly enough, every time that I've seen a character die at the Mepacons, and the conventions held at Morrristown, everyone at the table without hesitation chips in for the resurrection, and the player generally uses prestige to cover the negative level restoration.

The only time I've never seen it done is when a player announced a deliberate suicide.

It's probably why that our region reports so few perma-deaths. Something other regions ridicule us for, it seems. Let them.

Silver Crusade 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Like, going the waiting route proposed doesn't really change the dynamic of having a player at the table die."

Yeah, it does. I've been at several tables where people chipped in when a character died. Lots of factors seem to contribute to peoples decision on whether to chip in, including how much the characters like each other and how well built and played the character is.

At some real level, paying to save the character who died saving my life is different than paying to save the character who wasn't even at the table.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

21 people marked this as a favorite.

Explore. Cooperate. Report.

These are the words that drew me into PFS, and these are the ideals that keep me here. I'm going to agree with Paul, and ask that for the moment we should set aside the question of the unclear writing in this section of the guide. What I want us to do is to look into the heart of what was intended here by these changes, and ask: does it help us explore, cooperate and report?

Pre-Gens and their Usage

If you look through my past posts, you'll find that I'm an unabashed fan of the pre-gens. I have played them multiple times, trying out a wide variety. Pregens have allowed me to taste new classes, and have given me a chance to try them out. I like the current set of pregens, and have read their back stories, and enjoyed roleplaying the ones that I've tried. They're old friends.

In my area, I've often spent time with newcomers who've come in with a pregen. Aside from the jokes about Kyra Clones, the iconics are often treated as celebrities at the tables they sit at. "Oh, Seoni. It's great to see you again! You may not remember me, but we adventured together at Azlant Ridge."

Heck, I know multiple people who've built a character based on the iconics. The only pregen "abuse" that I've ever seen is people using up the pregen's stock of potions and wands first because theirs will magically restock next adventure.

One of the things that I have loved about the Pre-Gens is that they encouraged us to "Explore." Try out this new class. Try out this new game.

They also encouraged us to "Cooperate." When a group of six people discover that they're lacking some key element -- skills, martial combat, diplomacy, arcane power -- I've seen players say, "No problem, I'll bring in a pregen. I've always wanted to give the Investigator Class a try."

Perhaps the only thing they might have been weak upon was "Report" but I've seen people happily diving in, trying new things, and helping their team come home.

Ramifications

It was news to me that the changes to Pregen Death Assignment were set up not just to curb abuse, but also to increase risk and lethality. My concern is that this change will not only not fix the abuse, but it will also have a chilling affect on much of what I love and cherish about PFS.

I think it will discourage people from trying out a new class by using a pregen. I think it will hurt our newest players. I think it will punish the helpful players who want to balance their team. I know that it is making me question whether I really want to play Maelstrom's Rift, a game that I have been looking forward to ever since it was announced. Yes, I want to play a dragon bard. But not if it means potentially killing off my real bard, Jasmine and her Wu Chai Tea Empire.

Even more disturbing is the question of what raising lethality will serve. Why punish someone for playing a class that they've never tried before in a special? How does additional lethality help us all Explore, Cooperate and Report??? I've heard some people say that if there is no chance of death, the game becomes less fun. I understand some of the thinking behind this philosophy, but I disagree. Character deaths are a bummer that can cause good players to decide that it's not worth playing anymore.

PFS has always had different factions within it. There are the people who want hard-mode and the adenaline thrill. There are also people who thrive on the teamwork and roleplay of PFS.

If we want to curb abuse, I think we need to find another path because this solution will not fix it. If we want to increase risk... Is this the way we really want to do this? Who might we be driving away? Who will we be hurting?

I think that this decision was flawed, and I humbly request that the triumverate reconsider.

Thank you.

Hmm

Silver Crusade 5/5

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I foresee a lot of people saying "I'm not contributing anything, 'cause you can just save for it yourself."

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Oddly enough, every time that I've seen a character die at the Mepacons, and the conventions held at Morrristown, everyone at the table without hesitation chips in for the resurrection, and the player generally uses prestige to cover the negative level restoration.

The only time I've never seen it done is when a player announced a deliberate suicide.

It's probably why that our region reports so few perma-deaths. Something other regions ridicule us for, it seems. Let them.

FWIW, when PC's die in my area, the rest of the table can usually be counted on to help out with raising a character. Unless the cause of death was extremely stupid actions taken by the PC that resulted in its death, and even then I've seen the party chip in (albeit rather begrudgingly).

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Like, going the waiting route proposed doesn't really change the dynamic of having a player at the table die."

Yeah, it does. I've been at several tables where people chipped in when a character died. Lots of factors seem to contribute to peoples decision on whether to chip in, including how much the characters like each other and how well built and played the character is.

At some real level, paying to save the character who died saving my life is different than paying to save the character who wasn't even at the table.

You'd be chipping in to raise the pregen, that died saving your life. If you felt that the pregen character was helpful and etc... then you pay to raise it. If you didn't then you still don't.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Hmm pretty much sums up my feelings on this matter. ^_^

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:


At some real level, paying to save the character who died saving my life is different than paying to save the character who wasn't even at the table.
You'd be chipping in to raise the pregen, that died saving your life. If you felt that the pregen character was helpful and etc... then you pay to raise it. If you didn't then you still don't.

No I'm really not. I KNOW that whatever I do will not affect the chances of my character playing with that character. The pregen survives regardless of what happens. It is the unknown character that dies.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:


I think it will discourage people from trying out a new class by using a pregen. I think it will hurt our newest players. I think it will punish the helpful players who want to balance their team. I know that it is making me question whether I really want to play Maelstrom's Rift, a game that I have been looking forward to ever since it was announced. Yes, I want to play a dragon bard. But not if it means potentially killing off my real bard, Jasmine and her Wu Chai Tea Empire.

Even more disturbing is the question of what raising lethality will serve. Why punish someone for playing a class that they've never tried before in a special? How does additional lethality help us all Explore, Cooperate and Report??? I've heard some people say that if there is no chance of death, the game becomes less fun. I understand some of the thinking behind this philosophy, but I disagree. Character deaths are a bummer that can cause good players to decide that it's not worth playing anymore.

PFS has always had different factions within it. There are the people who want hard-mode and the adenaline thrill. There are also people who thrive on the teamwork and roleplay of PFS.

If we want to curb abuse, I think we need to find another path because this solution will not fix it. If we want to increase risk... Is this the way we really want to do this? Who might we be driving away? Who will we be hurting?

I think that this decision was flawed, and I humbly request that the triumverate reconsider.

This sums up my thoughts much better than I could have put into words, especially the part I put in bold text. So, if I want to play this character... so what if you don't need another sorcerer... under these new rules, I will NEVER play a pregen for any reason.

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:


FWIW, when PC's die in my area, the rest of the table can usually be counted on to help out with raising a character. Unless the cause of death was extremely stupid actions taken by the PC that resulted in its death, and even then I've seen the party chip in (albeit rather begrudgingly).

Here too. And the online community (at least the subset where I mostly play) seems pretty good about it too.

Ironically considering this thread, the one time I didn't contribute was when I was playing a Pregen and so couldn't :-). I was REALLY glad that I couldn't, too. The player was new but playing his character like an idiot. He was REALLY upset when his character died. He basically guilted the rest of the group into contributing (my sense of the table is that most of the people thought his character deserved to die). I most certainly did NOT want to contribute to his raise dead, I'd have only done so because of a probably misplaced sense of obligation (I don't think the player ever returned anyway).

That is actually another consequence of this ruling that I hadn't thought of before. Previously, there was almost no social pressure to contribute to the raise dead of a pregen. Now there is. Not sure that is a good thing at all.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Up until now I've focused on the logistics of handling Pregen deaths, but I will also hop on the bandwagon of calling this implication harmful to the image of Pregens (and PFS).

Playing the Pregen Investigator led me to creating one of my own. Quinn is one of the two Pregens I laminated and carry with me in case I need to play a Pregen (Oloch being the other).

I'm a player that plans and scrutinizes where my credit is going. Applying a 7-11 Chronicle to a 1st level character is usually a waste, in my eyes. So I'm not someone that will just apply credit to a –XX+1. I'm someone who would rather walk. I have the privilege of opportunity to play that scenario at a later date.

Ultimately, though, I'm not the person it would affect the most. If I was considering playing a Pregen, it was probably only so that others could pull off a game. So if this "threat/risk" was aimed at players using Pregens, it fails to hit the mark, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can a 4th or 7th level pregen still be used to create a 1st level character with 500 gp, 1 xp? This seemed like a good tool for recruiting players. If it's another thing that changed its like we are purposely creating rules to deter pesky and annoying newbies from joining the society, is that the master plan?

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

Fred Strauss wrote:
Can a 4th or 7th level pregen still be used to create a 1st level character with 500 gp, 1 xp? This seemed like a good tool for recruiting players. If it's another thing that changed its like we are purposely creating rules to deter pesky and annoying newbies from joining the society, is that the master plan?

Yes.

Applying Credit, pg. 7 of Season 8 Guide wrote:
You can apply credit to a newly created, 1st-level Roleplaying Guild character from a higher-level sanctioned module or Adventure Path. When doing so, reduce the gp reward to 500 gp if the adventure grants 1 XP or 1,398 gp if it grants 3 XP. You do not bene t from any boons until your Roleplaying Guild character reaches the minimum level listed on the Chronicle sheet, unless otherwise noted.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The reintroduction of "newly created" will cause some headaches.

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent

Hmm - I do not believe that the intent is to increase the lethality of PFS. Adding more risk yes, but not necessarily the lethality. Nobody wants to see a player lose their character, and I think that the vast majority of our community will band together and "cooperate" if that risk leads to a death and its necessary to raise a fallen comrade. However, risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us. I understand the concerns of those who dislike this rule and even agree that it may not stop the "abuse" that people have mentioned, but I still can not agree with the previous ruling where people got a chronicle with absolutely no risk involved.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zach Davis wrote:
Hmm - I do not believe that the intent is to increase the lethality of PFS. Adding more risk yes, but not necessarily the lethality. Nobody wants to see a player lose their character, and I think that the vast majority of our community will band together and "cooperate" if that risk leads to a death and its necessary to raise a fallen comrade. However, risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us. I understand the concerns of those who dislike this rule and even agree that it may not stop the "abuse" that people have mentioned, but I still can not agree with the previous ruling where people got a chronicle with absolutely no risk involved.

I have played pregens about a dozen times, give or take.

No scenario I've played a pregen in has been a 'given' of 'no risk involved'.

In some scenarios, the pregen I was playing was the only thing between a party wipe ('TPK') and mission success, and it was a CLOSE thing.

Risk? Even under the old system there was risk. I'm not sure where people are getting this false impression that Pathfinder Society play is 'too easy'.

Far too many times I've seen (in the space of about thirty scenarios or thereabouts, possibly more) things being very much in the hands of the dice gods and the situation going sideways in a dramatic fashion.

So when people talk about 'adding more risk' to the campaign, it sets my hackles on edge...

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Manchester aka Merisal The Risen

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zach Davis wrote:
Hmm - I do not believe that the intent is to increase the lethality of PFS. Adding more risk yes, but not necessarily the lethality. Nobody wants to see a player lose their character, and I think that the vast majority of our community will band together and "cooperate" if that risk leads to a death and its necessary to raise a fallen comrade. However, risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us. I understand the concerns of those who dislike this rule and even agree that it may not stop the "abuse" that people have mentioned, but I still can not agree with the previous ruling where people got a chronicle with absolutely no risk involved.

You seem to conveniently ignore the fact the chronicle that says character DEAD and no possible access to loot on said chronicle there was never zero risk.

If the aim of the organised play campaign is to introduce people to pathfinder then it should not have the steep price for those new to the campaign this was why the rule was introduced

This change in my opinion marks a sea change from inclusive campaign to exclusive one and is not what in my opinion what an organised play campaign should be about

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zach Davis wrote:
... risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us.

This is a true statement for some people who play PFS, probably a majority. It is not true for all people who play PFS. It also depends strongly on the meaning of "meaning".

I am as happy playing a game with a character when there are no future consequences of failure as I am when failing will result in the 'death' of 30 hours of play.

To me, it's about the roleplaying and the story created by the interaction of the people at the table. Not whether the numbers on my piece of paper mechanically beat the numbers in the scenario and survive to be computed upon another day - that is fun, it's just not why I do it.

See Feynman's quote about physics giving practical results.

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent

I agree its not all about mechanics. I didn't say it was, but risks and consequences to your actions apply to what you say and how you interact with others as well as in the number crunchy situations.

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Zach Davis wrote:
Hmm - I do not believe that the intent is to increase the lethality of PFS. Adding more risk yes, but not necessarily the lethality. Nobody wants to see a player lose their character, and I think that the vast majority of our community will band together and "cooperate" if that risk leads to a death and its necessary to raise a fallen comrade. However, risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us. I understand the concerns of those who dislike this rule and even agree that it may not stop the "abuse" that people have mentioned, but I still can not agree with the previous ruling where people got a chronicle with absolutely no risk involved.

I have played pregens about a dozen times, give or take.

No scenario I've played a pregen in has been a 'given' of 'no risk involved'.

In some scenarios, the pregen I was playing was the only thing between a party wipe ('TPK') and mission success, and it was a CLOSE thing.

Risk? Even under the old system there was risk. I'm not sure where people are getting this false impression that Pathfinder Society play is 'too easy'.

Far too many times I've seen (in the space of about thirty scenarios or thereabouts, possibly more) things being very much in the hands of the dice gods and the situation going sideways in a dramatic fashion.

So when people talk about 'adding more risk' to the campaign, it sets my hackles on edge...

I completely disagree. If you were playing a pregen, and you had the ability to shift the credit to a non-existent character number there was zero risk involved for you. The only way you could suffer any loss was if you chose to accept the consequences and not shift the credit.

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent

Jeff Cook wrote:
Zach Davis wrote:
Hmm - I do not believe that the intent is to increase the lethality of PFS. Adding more risk yes, but not necessarily the lethality. Nobody wants to see a player lose their character, and I think that the vast majority of our community will band together and "cooperate" if that risk leads to a death and its necessary to raise a fallen comrade. However, risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us. I understand the concerns of those who dislike this rule and even agree that it may not stop the "abuse" that people have mentioned, but I still can not agree with the previous ruling where people got a chronicle with absolutely no risk involved.

You seem to conveniently ignore the fact the chronicle that says character DEAD and no possible access to loot on said chronicle there was never zero risk.

If the aim of the organised play campaign is to introduce people to pathfinder then it should not have the steep price for those new to the campaign this was why the rule was introduced

This change in my opinion marks a sea change from inclusive campaign to exclusive one and is not what in my opinion what an organised play campaign should be about

I'm ignoring nothing. There was no risk, and no dead character because the player could just shift the chronicle to a non-existent blob.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Forgive an ageing guy talking to himself...

brock, no the other one... wrote:
I am as happy playing a game with a character when there are no future consequences of failure as I am when failing will result in the 'death' of 30 hours of play.

I should note that what I am not happy with is losing the results of hours of play due to factors that are outside of my ability to properly affect. An example of that is when I am playing with a character that I haven't created. You could argue that I had a choice not to play, but encouraging people not to play PFS is not what PFS is about.

I'm happy with a penalty, but not with having to resolve the expensive conditions a 7th level pregen can expect to receive using only the 1/2 gold gear and whatever resources my 3rd level character has. It seams mean to beat the poor thing to death with sticks well above it's pay-grade.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zach Davis wrote:
There was no risk, and no dead character because the player could just shift the chronicle to a non-existent blob.

It's known as an opportunity cost. That chronicle is now unavailable for ever - they have lost the opportunity to gain it.

If the player could have successfully completed the scenario with their own character, but failed it due to playing a pregen to be helpful to the rest of the table, there was a risk and a consequence to that player.

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent

Encouraging people not to play is not my stance either, but you can apply it to a character you already have and live on the edge applying the rewards earned to a specific character or apply it to a non-existent character from the beginning. In the second case you might die in which case no big deal or you might succeed providing yourself with some cool stuff on another character down the line. I don't think its a big deal letting people apply it to an empty character slot I just think whatever choice they make they should have to stand by it.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zach Davis wrote:
Encouraging people not to play is not my stance either, but you can apply it to a character you already have and live on the edge applying the rewards earned to a specific character or apply it to a non-existent character from the beginning. In the second case you might die in which case no big deal or you might succeed providing yourself with some cool stuff on another character down the line. I don't think its a big deal letting people apply it to an empty character slot I just think whatever choice they make they should have to stand by it.

I largely agree with you, but I think that the resources needed from the base character to clear the conditions on the pregen need to be finely tuned to be fairer than they are at present, otherwise the result will be to drive people away from playing pregens, and in scenarios where pregens are the only option.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zach Davis wrote:
you can apply it to a character you already have and live on the edge applying the rewards earned to a specific character

Also note that one person's 'living on the edge' is another person's 'unacceptable level of risk'. For sufferers of anxiety disorders, risk outside of their normal comfort zone (the previous rules) and/or outside of their control (not their character), is a big thing.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread complaining of the widespread abuse that this is supposed to address.

Where are those people?

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Far too many times I've seen (in the space of about thirty scenarios or thereabouts, possibly more) things being very much in the hands of the dice gods and the situation going sideways in a dramatic fashion.

So when people talk about 'adding more risk' to the campaign, it sets my hackles on edge...

That is the other reason why this is a horrible idea. Death is entirely arbitrary at times in Pathfinder and sometimes more expensive than Raise Dead. One again you can kind of deal with that with character design in mind but well yeah that is another fatal flaw with the pregens.

Silver Crusade 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread complaining of the widespread abuse that this is supposed to address.

Where are those people?

There is one person (SinsofAsmodeus, I believe) who said that he has seen abuse.

I'll accept that there IS abuse but it seems clear that it is not common as we now have LOTS of people from LOTS of areas who have never seen any.

5/5

Remember, the forums are not representative of the tens of thousands of PFS players. The campaign staff through the V-O's have much better data on this than we do here. If they say there's abuse, I'm willing to believe it's a problem.

Silver Crusade 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Remember, the forums are not representative of the tens of thousands of PFS players. The campaign staff through the V-O's have much better data on this than we do here. If they say there's abuse, I'm willing to believe it's a problem.

I'm willing to believe that it exists. Less willing to believe its a problem.

I'm sure they've heard some anecdotal evidence. But I think that there is a very real chance that they've blown the problem out of proportion. Without very rigid analysis that is exactly what people tend to do, blow anecdotal evidence out of proportion.

And, of course, many of us think this solution won't fix the problem anyway.

451 to 500 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Can pregen deaths still be reassigned? All Messageboards